EPTAm I missing some advantage of surface habitation? Sure it's less resource intensive to set up the first colony but it's infinitely more vulnerable to outside factors and once the initial colony is founded it's more resource intensive.
NASA and the Private Sector - Page 87
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Keep debates civil. | ||
KwarK
United States42772 Posts
Am I missing some advantage of surface habitation? Sure it's less resource intensive to set up the first colony but it's infinitely more vulnerable to outside factors and once the initial colony is founded it's more resource intensive. | ||
zatic
Zurich15329 Posts
For larger projects that could be an option of course. Not sure though if proper surface buildings or heavy excavation equipment is the easier thing to bring to Mars. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21700 Posts
On May 09 2016 22:55 zatic wrote: I am not sure people are even at the stage of seriously planning larger colonies? For a initial research colonies of a dozen or so people a Martian style blow up tent is likely a lot cheaper than digging a giant hole. For larger projects that could be an option of course. Not sure though if proper surface buildings or heavy excavation equipment is the easier thing to bring to Mars. For an actual colony long term survival odds beat carrying issues. Yes, underground colonies on hostile worlds make a lot of sense if quakes are no issue. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42772 Posts
On May 09 2016 22:55 zatic wrote: I am not sure people are even at the stage of seriously planning larger colonies? For a initial research colonies of a dozen or so people a Martian style blow up tent is likely a lot cheaper than digging a giant hole. For larger projects that could be an option of course. Not sure though if proper surface buildings or heavy excavation equipment is the easier thing to bring to Mars. Mars has caves already. You could start by just tenting off a section of a natural cave. Also I was thinking more along the lines of small equipment, say jackhammers and the like, rather than a proper earthmover. Once you have the self contained ecosystem turning shit back into plants and CO2 back into oxygen time isn't so much of a factor. It's not like they'll send more humans before they have space for them. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8986 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
The whole Mars mission plan feels reckless to me; better to start in a safer, closer place; considering the difficulties in landing on Mars. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8986 Posts
Once we get the cost down, it makes sense to try and get the moon up and running. AC195, if you get my drift | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
On May 10 2016 00:43 zlefin wrote: It's easier to colonize the moon than Mars, so we should really be starting there anyways. The whole Mars mission plan feels reckless to me; better to start in a safer, closer place; considering the difficulties in landing on Mars. The moon has no atmosphere, and dust which like jagged glass, and a day night cycle that is 30 days(I think) where Mars is more like Earth. Working on the moon would be more like a rest stop/fuel depot if one did not have to land there. Tear up machines, use more fuel just take off when you had to land in the first place and so forth. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42772 Posts
On May 10 2016 00:27 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: They'll be looking to use a crater as a base to begin building, as it offers better protection against the solar wind-like forces. They would then need to set up a rather tall antenna to send and receive information back to Earth/moon bases. After that, they would probably expand in a circular or hexagonal pattern until the crater was full. After that and much terraforming, I think they would look to build on the surface. The ease of communication and emergency measures would be better if they were closer to the surface than subterranean. More than likely, they'll be looking to use a nuclear source to start the atmospheric generation of Mars, or even a man-made dome capable of radiation and solar wind protection. Presumably you'd have a big satellite for communication and observation placed right above the planned location. You only want to put the essentials on the surface itself. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On May 10 2016 02:12 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: The moon has no atmosphere, and dust which like jagged glass, and a day night cycle that is 30 days(I think) where Mars is more like Earth. Working on the moon would be more like a rest stop/fuel depot if one did not have to land there. Tear up machines, use more fuel just take off when you had to land in the first place and so forth. Given that the entire biosphere has to be contained anyways; Mars doesn't really off that much that you can't get on the moon. There's spots on the lunar poles that have continuous sunlight at a high slant, which is good for more stable temperatures and power supplies. The moon also doesn't have weather to deal with, while Mars does. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On May 10 2016 03:01 zlefin wrote: Given that the entire biosphere has to be contained anyways; Mars doesn't really off that much that you can't get on the moon. There's spots on the lunar poles that have continuous sunlight at a high slant, which is good for more stable temperatures and power supplies. The moon also doesn't have weather to deal with, while Mars does. The only reason to build anything on the moon is to use it as a stop off point to other areas of the solar system. That rock is pretty useless to us otherwise. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11519 Posts
If you don't use the moon rocks themselves, you are better of just building the gas stop on a space station instead, because this way you don't have to use fuel to land and launch from the moon. You might be able to carry asteroids with the stuff you want to use to that station. You are not going to land asteroids on the moon. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
oBlade
United States5609 Posts
On May 10 2016 03:01 zlefin wrote: Given that the entire biosphere has to be contained anyways; Mars doesn't really off that much that you can't get on the moon. There's spots on the lunar poles that have continuous sunlight at a high slant, which is good for more stable temperatures and power supplies. The moon also doesn't have weather to deal with, while Mars does. Weather is very predictable on Mars, basically because it has no oceans. It's nearly cyclic annually. Mars, compared to the moon, offers: -Some atmospheric protection vs. radiation and space rocks -CO2 and water ice that we can use easily -Mars regolith is better for growing plants -Mars night/day is better for growing plants (the moon has no sunlight for 2 weeks at a time) -Stronger gravity -A million times more interesting The moon, compared to Mars, offers: -We can build a space elevator on it with current technology, which could move things off of the surface of the moon and into lunar orbit - but that would only be useful if there were something important on the surface of the moon, like people or spaceships, but those are all on Earth right now. -We could put enormous radio telescopes in craters on the far side of the moon, which is permanently shielded from Earth noise | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
Surely there's some stuff in the lunar rocks, especially if you dig down a bit, that would be helpful for construction? I agree that the moon would be more of an industrial area; but it's a lot closer to work with. One of the basic needs for a colony is the ability to acquire new resources locally; and the moon would seem like an easier to work with area for developing efficient tech to build new things out of local materials. | ||
|
arbiter_md
Moldova1219 Posts
And considering that a mission to Mars can be sent only like once in two years, there will be a lot of years of exploration ahead before we can set a colony there. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
On May 10 2016 04:44 zlefin wrote: We've tested the Mars regolith enough to know it's better for growing plants than Moon? I didn't know we had that info. Surely there's some stuff in the lunar rocks, especially if you dig down a bit, that would be helpful for construction? I agree that the moon would be more of an industrial area; but it's a lot closer to work with. One of the basic needs for a colony is the ability to acquire new resources locally; and the moon would seem like an easier to work with area for developing efficient tech to build new things out of local materials. No atmosphere means no erosion meaning glass like dirt which can shred suits, equipment and make any building a tightrope when working on or even walking inside of. Imagine building a runway and the damage caused by every vehicle and every take off and landing by equipment. Now imagine if there are fuel tanks etc nearby. Now imagine if Bigelow Aerospace is the one supplying and building the structures. A structure can only take so much. Thus the reason fueling stations would make much better sense orbiting the moon rather than on the surface. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
8986 Posts
Also, I would figure that a space colony/ station similar to the ISS would be built between the Moon and Mars sooner than a Moon colony would happen. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
^ Mars prep? | ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
| ||
| ||
